Buckingham Palace shares big news!

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I believe that the radio station can expect a lawsuit from this woman's family in the near future.

I've got mixed feelings about this...

When it was reported that the nurse released information, the nurse was the one who was being side-eyed for her lack of judgement. But when a nurse (who didn't reveal info) commits suicide, it's the radio station who is now being criticized.

I certainly think it was a mistake for the deejays to make the prank call, and I suspect they will be reprimanded/punished by the radio station if they haven't already. But it doesn't seem entirely appropriate to me that the radio station would face a lawsuit. Perhaps that's just my personal feelings toward those who commit suicide coloring my judgement here, but the radio station couldn't have foreseen her reaction. Should the deejays be fired? Sure, I can see that. The radio station is accountable for poor decisions made by its employees, and terminating said employees is reasonable. But to hold the radio station accountable for a woman's suicide seems a bit much.

[Kevin]

I dunno, I think it is definitely foreseeable that duping a hospital nurse into releasing information about a royal patient could cause severe emotional distress and that could lead to suicide.

I'll bet there's some wonderful Queen's Bench law covering the matter, but my Westlaw account doesn't have that in my plan.

[SWTXBelle]

It's not the first time the radio station has been in trouble:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._fm_prank.html
QUOTE:
It's worth pointing out, however, that this isn't the first time that 2Day FM has run into trouble with a prank. The station was slapped with a five-year license probation back in 2009 for violating Australian regulations after a gag involving a lie detector went horribly wrong, ending with a 14-year-old girl admitting on air that she was raped. (The Daily Beast has more on that story here.)

[lovespink88]

For the record, found this on reddit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20645838

Apparently lots of other media outlets (Fox, per the link above and Huffingtonpost, in another story I saw) are not being very clear. The nurse that was found dead is not the nurse who revealed the info. From the article:

"Mrs Saldanha, a duty nurse who was married with two children, answered the telephone because it was 05:30 GMT and there was no receptionist on duty...In the call, another nurse was tricked into revealing specific confidential information about the duchess's medical condition."

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I dunno, I think it is definitely foreseeable that duping a hospital nurse into releasing information about a royal patient could cause severe emotional distress and that could lead to suicide.

Except that the nurse who committed suicide wasn't the same nurse who released information.
*(ETA that I'm not trying to justify the deejays' actions. Just that the nurse who seems to be facing the bigger issues here is the one who released the info, not the one who transferred the call.)
**[EATA that it likely doesn't matter which deceived nurse committed suicide. If it's foreseeable that the one who released information would commit suicide, then it's also foreseeable that the one who transferred the call would commit suicide. See what I mean about having mixed feelings? I shouldn't have posted in this thread until I figured out where I stood on the issue.]

When I first heard of the nurse's death, before it was identified as suicide, I wondered if the nurse who released information got mad at the nurse who transferred the call and subsequently killed her.

It's a shame though, all the way around. The nurse who released info made poor decisions, the deejays made poor decisions, the nurse who committed suicide made poor decisions... such negativity surrounding what should be a celebratory event (that an heir is on the way, not Kate's hospitalization).

[CutiePie2000]

I thought this was a very good editorial on Ethics, from The Toronto Star:

"Blaming DJs for nurse’s death simplistic and vindictive"

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

I thought this was a very good editorial on Ethics, from The Toronto Star:

"Blaming DJs for nurse’s death simplistic and vindictive"

And I'm in agreement with that guy.

[MysticCat]

Tick, tock, tick, tock . . . .

[ASTalumna06]

::yawn::

Am I the only person who doesn't care about this?

[Psi U MC Vito]

No. I honestly wish everybody would leave them alone. It would be one thing if it was the first child of the King, but we are talking about the Heir of the Heir having a child.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

No. I honestly wish everybody would leave them alone.

It is possible -- theoretically, at least -- to give them their privacy and still be interested and have some anticipation. I don't know how things are on the ground in Britain, but the coverage hasn't seemed nearly as overboard as what's sometimes been seen in the past.

[Sciencewoman]

My husband could care less, but I'm really excited for the royal birth.

I was hoping it would be on our dog's birthday (July 13), since he is a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel with English bloodlines and a fabulous pedigree. That would have been fitting.

My husband rolled his eyes at that.

[honeychile]

Any bets on the name?

I'm on record for James (if it's a boy) or Alexandra (if it's a boy), but hoping that Diana & Elizabeth are included in a girl's name.

[ColdInCanada11]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Any bets on the name?

I'm on record for James (if it's a boy) or Alexandra (if it's a boy), but hoping that Diana & Elizabeth are included in a girl's name.

I'm doubting James, only because of Hewitt, and the fact that the Earl of Wessex's son is also named James. I think Alexandra would be lovely, the DoK's sister is one of my favourite royals!

[Sciencewoman]

What about Andrew, for the University where they met?